Dr. Jones is a well published professor of physics, and Mr. Ryan was previously employed by Underwriters Laboratories (UL).

They describe some of the findings they have published in peer reviewed scientific papers.

They argue that scientific evidence refutes the official conclusion by the National Institute of Standards and Technologies (NIST) that explosives were not involved in the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

The conclusion of NIST's 10,000 page report which took seven years to produce claims fires, coupled with "thermal expansion" and unusual truss design caused core column 79 to fail, leading to a complete "progressive collapse".

The absolute impossibility mentioned above is evident in their computer simulation of the physical copllapse as initiated by core column 79. In reviewing the individual screen shots, and when seen in the non-NIST animation of their screen shots , it becomes apparent that the collapse they postulate is totally different from all videos of the actual collapse.

In their simulation, the East side of WTC7, where column 79 was located, fell completely down taking over 25% of the building to the ground, while the balance of the building was as yet unaffected.

The fire on floor 12 is critical to the NIST hypothesis because the collapse of floor 13 in the north east corner of the building is supposedly the beginning of the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC 7.

On page 383 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 volume 1, the fire simulation graphic of floor 12 shows the fire conveniently burning around column 79 and then coming back to it at 5:00 p.m. The NIST fire simulation is not consistent with the photographs of the fire. The photographs show, and the NIST Appendix L report states, the fire on floor 12 had burned out by 4:45 p.m. In fact, it had burned out in the east end before 4:00 p.m.

Therefore, the fire did not cause floor 13 to collapse at 5:20 p.m. and the implosion of WTC 7 did not occur as NIST has proposed.

"WTC 7 explanation falls short" {Letter to the Editor of The Houston Chronicle}

After I read Friday's Page A8 article, "Sept. 11 building enigma solved in investigation," and reviewed the National Institute of Standards and Technology Web site http://www.nist.gov/, I can only conclude that the "final" and official government explanation of why World Trade Center tower 7 collapsed is a far cry from a plausible explanation.

WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane and had only minor isolated fires, collapsed in perfect symmetry at literally free-fall speed. Prior to 9/11 no steel structured building had ever collapsed or even come close to collapsing due to fire. The official explanation that this symmetrical eight-second collapse was due to "thermal expansion" of the steel structure because of scattered and isolated fires defies common sense and the most elementary laws of physics. The computer model presented on the NIST Web site does not even match the video of the actual collapse.

With the supposed upcoming release of NIST's draft report on WTC 7's collapse, I thought it would be useful to revisit NIST's original report for WTC 1 and 2. As many of you know, NIST found that the towers collapsed from aircraft damage and fire alone and that they found no corroborating evidence for alternate theories of the collapse. What I find interesting is that the same can be said for NIST's own hypothesis - namely that no corroborating evidence was found to support its fire theory.

In order to be exact, let us restate NIST's exact fire collapse hypothesis, specifically for WTC 1:

1) Aircraft impact cause damage to the North face and several core columns were severed. Aircraft debris also dislodged fireproofing that helped speed the later collapse.

2) The jet fuel ignited a large fire that originally started on the north side of the tower and over the course of 90 min worked its way to the south side.

3) The fire temperatures seen were in excess of 800C in some places, causing weakening of the core but specifically causing the long span floor truss assemblies to sag.

There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?

In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]

[Note: I will be speaking with Kevin Ryan, a leading expert on the NIST cover-up, at the Peoria Public Library at 2 pm this Saturday, 10/20/07, 107 N.E. Monroe St., Peoria, IL 61602]

In an amazing about-face, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has implicitly admitted that its 10,000-page report on the destruction of the Twin Towers is a fraud, and that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.

In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.

NIST's mandate required the issuance of a final report but also included recommendations which could affect the entire steel building industry, high rise evacuation procedures, high rise firefighting techniques and numerous other standards and code. The Data Quality Act has been in place to insure that government reports such as the one put out by NIST on the World Trade Center towers is useful, objective, and of sound integrity. Mr. Gourley's Request for Correction petition seeks to hold NIST accountable for the egregious errors and lies published in their report.

At 5:20 p.m. on the evening of September 11th, 2001, the Salomon Brothers Building, also known as 7 World Trade Center (WTC7), the northernmost building on the World Trade Center complex, uniformly collapsed in 6.5 seconds. It produced a rubble pile with a radius similar its original dimensions and approximately seven stories tall [1].

When Matthew Rothschild, editor of the online magazine The Progressive, wrote an article called “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already”, we all knew he was not talking about the conspiracy theory that the US government sells us to justify the expanding 9/11 Wars.[1] To the contrary, in writing that article Mr. Rothschild was selling that same theory himself. What he actually meant was that people should not question the US government’s story of terror because credentialed experts have been found to support it. But the fact is that the experts found to support the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 are predominantly those who profit from doing so. That’s not to say that all of these people were “part of the conspiracy”. But they are, whether consciously or not, a part of the cover-up. And that, of course, is the greater crime.

It is very well written and recommendable for people new to 9/11 Truth. It contains the points that the Loose Change guys should have raised when Ronald Wieck disingenuously said that truthers are not willing to engage in dialogue against the NIST report.

A retired physics teacher emailed to me that an object dropped from the roof of the Twin Towers would have reached the ground in 12 to 13 seconds. That is, in approximately the same time in which the towers totally collapsed.

The WFP article states "From high school physics, a floor by floor gravitational collapse of the undamaged 90 floors of the north tower would take almost 80 seconds, not including the time delay to break the columns of each floor". That sounds credible, but where could I get the calculations?

If and when the above holds, it is shocking to realize that the world's peer-reviewed scientific journals are not -- to Chomsky's chagrin - filled with articles debunking the NIST report and promoting controlled demolition hypotheses. It would be interesting to know to what extent such articles have been submitted for peer review and rejected. I assume not so many have been submitted in the first place.